Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BRITISH JUSTICE

. - —— - (‘ ( liristchurch Times.”

With tin; vriilutrawa! of our troop; .rum liie i'.'ji it iH.i:• ml there isuiii! t; ,iu (-ml ii court unique in the history il !.rii i.--.ii criminal justice. By the treaty of Versailles it was decided hut. in the occupied territory, ofichves against pc-rsoas or properl;. .if the occupying forces should 1) the subject of trial by the courts oi the army concerned.

A tribunal was therefore set rtp by the British in which simplicity of procedure, promptitude of action, index i' le fairness, and all the characteristic A’dical attributes of a court in tin 'did Country itself, were evident it dealing with cases that came before it.

Proceedings were opened to the pu la-., juid were conducted through both liritisli and German interpiet ers, and while no machinery was pro .-alert ifor appeal against a sentence 1 b'* (Vmimander-in-Chiel exercised tm rivht to qnash convictions or remit sen inures. Tim working of tliis court is explain ■ d in an article in a recent issue of '•(' “Nineteenth Century” by Majoi Norman Parkos, who slictvs that it ex cited tile greatest intermit among tic ’ermnn people because of its wide d' verg'enco from the judical, methods iii-iciised in their own courts, in them as in most Continental courts, the accused person is considered to he gui! tv and the onus of p"oving himsrb innocent is an obligation that rests imi iiim personally.

1-hrcetly in opposition to this pi'in ciple is that of the British Courts, aim even German lawyers, who no doom knew of its existence Irom their studies, were continually puzzled by its application. On occasions, when tin prosecution broke down and a verdict i.if acquittal was given .lithout calling op tiic defence. the incrcdulom amazement shown by the pi'iisoiie; ofLeii upset the proverliial dignity <d i, British court of justice.

liven members of the German Bin while expressing their approval of the procedure and the justice so iairly meted out, completely lulled to understand a judical system that, by its own volition, allowed a man to go free after falling into its cl niches. In their courts, moreover, the examination of the witnesses and the prisoner is undertaken bv the judge h'liiKolf. and as a consequence German lawyers show .little skill in the

art of examining a wilimss and limn whatever in cross-examination.

'n the early days ol the occupation the commonest crime that occupied -he attention of this British Court in the Bliineland was that of burglary, a enndit.jn that arose, it is said, on account of the British love for fresh air. Open windows at nigtht. so unusual m Germa...i towns, were too great a temptation to lie resisted, and although the sentences imposed were much heavier than in the German courts, the invitation of a wide open window wlmn the occupants •if the house were asleep was more than an enterprising burglar could refuse.

This particular form of crime persis!(il. despite tin' fact that intrduers -i)| ( . j-isl, of being shot hv the British householder, and on one occasion ail oiTk'U’ severely wounded three men found in his bedroom. When they apvicared in the dock, each to rccciv(> a ■•'ui to,nee of ton years’ imprisonment. is said that it.e appeared as if a see ’■on of the hosnital casualI}’ 1 }’ ward had 1 r-n transferred to the court. But of[('liens against the person by Gei mans were extremclv few.

During the wide of the years of oe

•••-MMfi<)ii only one civilian was eon vie ted of murder. That particular case war- of interest to the people of tiie Dominion, lor it was a New Zealand soldier who was shot in an alterm--Gun with a gang of youths who •■'hewed tlmir contempt- lor German •■-•iris associating with men of tlm err 1 }’ occupation, by cutting olf 'heir hair. The murderer was not ai—ash'd until live years later, and it will hr' remembered that a wiino«". at the trial was sumni 'lied from thin -,-ui ii i "v; Sentence oi death was ivssrd on the orisoncr, but the •- • nd(.-r-!n < 'il ief xel-Ned his

prerogative and commuted it to im prisnnmenl for lilt*.

\ few cases came belore tin* courtof insulting conduct towards tiie British, an offence that could he committed by “word, act, or gesture,” but on the whole attitude of the German population towards ‘.our army of occupation was of a far more friendly nature that it was to the French. Further evidence ol the respect won 'y mir troops was forthcoming when be last of the army of occupation withdrew’ from the'Rhineland. The British Court was compelled to deal vigorously with German profiteers who considered, for a time at leastthat our soldiers were fair game for ibeir excessive charges. Eventually •; siA-'tcm was evolved whereby rates were automatically fixed, and ithe Gorman traders’ visions of exorbi taut profits quickly' vanished. The Germans wer.e not slow to recognise the fairness of British justice as exemplified in the working of this interesting court. Hostile newspapers r-vlt : ei«m was experienced only on •Die or two occasions, and frcquentlv iudgmontH received most favourable notices even when political offenders were tried ami eonvioWl. It- says much for the British justice that wlrno applied to former enemies it could win their approval and respect because of its unvarying fairness.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19300604.2.65

Bibliographic details

Hokitika Guardian, 4 June 1930, Page 8

Word Count
878

BRITISH JUSTICE Hokitika Guardian, 4 June 1930, Page 8

BRITISH JUSTICE Hokitika Guardian, 4 June 1930, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert